When Orgasm Does Not Equal Pleasure: Three Empirical Studies on How Orgasm Experiences Can be "Bad"

Abstract

This dissertation presents three empirical studies that challenge notions of orgasm as a universally positive experience. Specifically, my research asks: Can orgasm experiences during consensual sex be “bad”? What do “bad” orgasm experiences mean for people’s relationships, sexuality, and psychological health? How might acknowledging “bad” orgasm experiences help us identify coercive behaviors in new ways? By answering these questions, my dissertation offers novel evidence that orgasm can co-occur with negative affect during consensual sex in ways that adversely impact people’s lives. In Chapter 1, I review how the medical, research, and cultural movements of the past century have positioned orgasm as a universally positive experience. I propose that these movements have created two interconnected assumptions, both of which have substantial risks that have not been addressed in research. These assumptions are that: 1) sex is always positive when consent and orgasm are present, and 2) trying to facilitate a partner’s orgasm is necessarily a positive behavior. In Chapter 2, I present my first study, which demonstrated how orgasm experiences during consensual sex can be “bad.” To do this, I asked participants (N = 726) to describe negative experiences with orgasm during consensual sex. Participants 1) described their experiences in negative ways despite orgasm occurrence, 2) reported that these negative orgasms were less pleasurable than other orgasms, and 3) suggested that their negative orgasm experiences had negative psychological, relationship, and sexual outcomes. These findings are the first to demonstrate that orgasm plus consensual sex does not necessarily equate to a positive experience. In Chapter 3, I present my second study, which showed that sex with orgasms can have negative outcomes, reinforcing that orgasm experiences can be “bad.” Participants (N = 430) reported whether they had ever experienced three types of bad orgasm experiences (with sexual coercion and/or orgasm coercion) with their partner. They also filled out measures of avoidance motivations (i.e., the motivation to consent to sex to avoid conflict), and psychological, relationship, and sexual outcomes. Structural equation modeling showed that bad orgasm experiences predicted significantly stronger avoidance motivations and worse psychological distress, relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and sexual functioning. Results highlighted that orgasm does not erase or invalidate the adverse effects associated with coercive and other negative experiences. Finally, in Chapter 4, I present my third study, which demonstrated that some attempts to facilitate a partner’s orgasm can manifest as “orgasm coercion.” Participants (N = 912) described what sexual partners have said or done that made them feel pressured to orgasm. Results showed that the orgasm pressure tactics described by participants were analogous to sexual coercion tactics (i.e., pressuring someone into having sex), and that orgasm pressure was associated with sexual coercion, compliance (i.e., faking orgasm), and negative psychological/relationship effects. Results further showed how the assumption that orgasms are always positive poses substantial risks by promoting and masking coercive behaviors. Together, the findings from this dissertation highlight an important point previously absent from research on sexuality: that orgasm during consensual sex does not equal pleasure, the presence of desire/arousal, or the absence of negative affect. As such, these findings provide a framework that, for the first time, may help people understand how their orgasm experiences can be “bad” (e.g., due to coercion, pain, disinterest, and/or other negative emotions) despite a cultural landscape that otherwise denies this possibility.